There is no alternative though. If we want faster and more content, in today’s industry, gamers will have to shell out the mula. Otherwise, remain a loyal player and meekly await for new content.
Blizzard had no such problems in 2016 / 17 with co-op content. Pricing structure has remained the same throughout.
Now things have slowed to a crawl. Why?
This isn’t necessarily about costs.
2 Likes
Well, what do you suggest? Our current trajectory is “we’re not getting the maps that we’re not getting”.
I will confess that I still have 4 COs to try out. Even after I level them up, I’ll want to spend a few more days on each of them to explore their Masteries. Then revisit the ones I’ve leveled up, but “shoved aside” (Zagara, Zeratul, and Tychus for ones).
I’ve got quite a while before I believe I get “genuinely bored” with the game. However, if we do get a new Mission before then, I’d certainly welcome it.
At the very least, push back against the poisonous monetization of gaming. If allowed to normalize, it will become commonplace and that cannot be good for the gamer. IMO selling maps at a price (or any content for that matter) when they’ve always been free has the same rotten smell as gaming companies trying to push loot boxes.
As far as new co-op maps are concerned there isn’t really much we can do particularly in the current climate. Voicing disappointment at the way things are can only do so much.
But if things are on a downward path then likewise my interest in SC2 co-op and my attention will turn to other games worth my time and money.
2 Likes
@Cybernetic I agree with you on all points. Not much else to say.
So true , i feel like people are okay with donating hundreds of bucks just to see something new , if the company isnt motivated to bring at least some free stuff in order to attract some new players then they are a lost case.
1 Like
I posted this idea somwhere on this forum before:
- sell new maps
- make it so that everyone can get the new map if playing random
- make it that only map owner can select the map directly
- map owner can invite everyone, no matter if they own the map or not
2 Likes
Because they are not getting money for this (directly). As long as we are buying commanders and skins, they are NOT going to do any other stuff. That is exactly the reason why they dealt away with mission packs.
What I gonna do is - I am not buying any new commanders till we get new maps. Everybody must do the same.
They will just completely end coop development then
2 Likes
Lol, I mean I agree in principle but that means nothing in practice.
Unless people can provide a solid reason and solution to convince everyone (or a real good majority) to not buy into this (pun intended), then it is just a nice sentiment with hot air blowing underneath.
Meanwhile, here in reality, we have a choice to be all angry-grandpa about it and hope for new content OR be a bit more practical and get with the times.
Not to offend anyone but even if everyone on the forum was convinced that is about 50-100 users out of thousands that play the game 
- perspectives.
I really think that depends on how much they’d charge for the coop mission pack.
If a pack of maps was expensive, I agree with you. But if it’s like five dollars, I don’t think that’s a paywall that’ll hugely deter anybody. If a mechanism was developed to handle how people who don’t own the pack interact with those who do have it, and that gets us a lot of maps, I don’t think that’s so bad.
I know a lot of people don’t like high fees for gaming, but like 5 dollars is not a high fee for gaming. That seems to be part of the reason why a lot of people like coop to begin with.
2 Likes
Not making maps IS ending of co-op lol.
Also Bliz put too much effort to adding tons of bullshift into these maps which nobody listens to anyway. Just make silent maps to PLAY, not listen to another junkie who asks 2 fraction leaders to find him some narcotics… You will be surprised how faster maps will come out.
I think I see where the disjunction is… you’re taking a one-time, $5 IAP and conflating that with actual loot boxes. I’m curious now… what games have you played with loot boxes? To me, paying $5 for a Mission is faar from being a loot boxes. If Blizzard were to implement an actual loot box system, it’d be more like pay $5 to buy a “mission loot box” with the following odds:
1 in 6 chance you’ll get the Mission
2 in 6 chance you’ll get +500 XP
2 in 6 chance you’ll get +1000 XP
1 in 6 chance you’ll get nothing. Sorry! Try again!
You want “poisonous monetization”? Try Plants Vs. Zombies 2: It’s About Time. In order to level up all plants to max levels will probably take about 6 years. All plants to max Mastery levels… 20 years. No joke, people have worked out the math with a variety of scenarios.
I leveled up Swann and Karax from scratch, to full Mastery, TWICE (first time I was on a video game lounge’s public account before reverting to my own and old WoL account). That was a bit of drudgery there. First time around, it didn’t feel like work. I just chipped away all the while having fun doing so. Second time I did that, it felt worse since I’m doing something that I already did before. At least the XP boosts (Warchest and Stimpacks) went a long way towards speeding that process up. Even with lv1000 Ascension, you’ll get there in a few years of “moderate playing”
Sc2 Coop is much more mild by comparison. It says a lot when you can get 1 or more college degrees in the time it takes to reach “the end of the line” in a video game (not to mention costing as much money to boot!)
I’d argue against this as well…
Sc2 went free to play in Nov. 2017, which includes the WoL campaign, and parts of Coop mode. For Coop, “the starting three” (Ray, Kerrigan, Art) are free, while all the other COs are playable to lv5, with the option to pay to unlock them.
Twitch Prime gave us a bunch of skins, consoles, emoticons, sprays, and 3 actual COs “at no additional cost”*
If they followed the WoW model, then being able to play into Mastery and Ascension would’ve required additional payments (IIRC, WoW unlocks extra XP levels via their expansions)
Since you brought it up, I’m curious now and went through my records… I spent $100 on Coop thus far. I purchased WoL collectors edition for $100 back in 2011. I have no regrets on any of those expenses. That said, for the most part, I don’t spend extra when I don’t need to. I may be tempted to buy skins and/or announcers, but being that I don’t play Sc2 outside of Coop, they seem truly useless to me.
.
*. Not “free” free since you need Amazon Prime membership
1 Like
I didn’t say adding a price on maps and loot boxes are the same thing, I was implying that they both smack of the same undertone which in this case is greed.
The point I’m trying to make is that adding a price on maps could be a slippery slope towards the greater monetization of gaming. Blizzard or anyone else will start to think it’s okay or acceptable, think about what else they could monetize and push it as far as they are willing to go. Give them an inch, they take a mile.
Adding prices on maps won’t mean co-op will eventually get loot boxes but it could have serious implications for future games and how those are designed should such monetization of gaming become normal. As things stand, companies like EA and Activision Blizzard are trying to do exactly that and it’s pretty disgusting what they have done so far.
1 Like
Last two maps were designed by players for a contest. Blizzard could emplement remaining winner maps without any major investment.
2 Likes
It’s not so much the dollar amount, it’s the principle.
When someone starts charging a price on something that has always been free, you have to question what their motives are and whether or not it’s justified.
I’m all for it. I believe 3rd place was a Primal Zerg boss fight map (name escapes me) and we need a full Zerg map.
4 Likes
… Well. that’s what I got out of when you said “stuff used to be free”… then loot boxes, so you’re predicting it’ll lead there eventually. Same difference.
I’m not going to worry any more about that then perhaps it’ll be yet another year without any new Missions.
I’m not sure we went the same way about it.
And I never said “stuff used to be free” which is past tense. What I said is future tense; what the look of selling maps would be like if they ever do it.
I maintain that moving forward, charging $5 for a map doesn’t sound like such a bad idea. If you’re worried about things going “downhill”, look no further than this topic. It’s already been well over a year without a new Mission.
I will acknowledge that yes, it could be a gateway to “bad stuff”, but we’re just as likely to see things like COs getting priced to $10 each. It’s such a long road to get to the point of “loot boxes” that I’m not going to panic about something that’s not even set in stone, at all
For me it was more than 426 days cuz I don’t even consider CoD a map to play XD
1 Like